[P2P-F] Farewell to the WSF? (GTN Discussions)

Sun Sep 8 13:37:22 CEST 2019

thanks!

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:54 AM jose ramos <actionforesight at gmail.com> wrote:

> https://eprints.qut.edu.au/40986/
>
> On Sat, 7 Sep. 2019, 10:36 pm Michel Bauwens, <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> and do you have a link to the last chapter, or the phd ?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 3:32 PM jose ramos <actionforesight at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Only a phd :)
>>>
>>> Last chapter laid it out
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Sep. 2019, 9:58 pm Michel Bauwens, <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> have you written anything specific on this, dear Jose, i.e.
>>>>
>>>> <its really the end of horizontalism as a credible organizing
>>>> strategy, adbusters to occupy failed. WSF did a lot but as this article
>>>> shows it waisted an opportunity. >
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 8:16 AM jose ramos <actionforesight at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> it's a solid analysis. I came to the same conclusions in my 2010
>>>>> thesis :(
>>>>>
>>>>> the evolution of the idea should be for a shared platform for
>>>>> coordinated / strategic action.
>>>>>
>>>>> its really the end of horizontalism as a credible organizing strategy,
>>>>> adbusters to occupy failed. WSF did a lot but as this article shows it
>>>>> waisted an opportunity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:08 PM Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>> From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork at greattransition.org>
>>>>>> Date: Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:10 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Farewell to the WSF? (GTN Discussions)
>>>>>> To: <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From Roberto Savio [utopia at robertosavio.info]
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *[Per Paul's email, reproduced below, we are kicking off this month's
>>>>>> discussion with a response from longtime member of the WSF International
>>>>>> Concil Roberto Savio. We look forward to your contributions. -- JC] *
>>>>>> *Farewell to the World Social Forum?*
>>>>>> Roberto Savio
>>>>>> Opening reflections for a GTN forum, 9/3/19
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *  LOOKING BACK*
>>>>>> The first World Social Forum in 2001 ushered in the new century with
>>>>>> a bold affirmation: “Another world is possible.” That gathering in Porto
>>>>>> Alegre, Brazil, stood as an alternative and a challenge to the World
>>>>>> Economic Forum, held at the same time an ocean away in the snowy Alps of
>>>>>> Davos, Switzerland. A venue for power elites to set the course of world
>>>>>> development, the WEF was then, and remains now, the symbol for global
>>>>>> finance, unchecked capitalism, and the control of politics by multinational
>>>>>> corporations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WSF, by contrast, was created as an arena for the grassroots to
>>>>>> gain a voice. The idea emerged from a 1999 visit to Paris by two Brazilian
>>>>>> activists, Oded Grajew, who was working on corporate social responsibility,
>>>>>> and Chico Whitaker, the executive secretary of the Commission of Justice
>>>>>> and Peace, an initiative of the Brazilian Catholic Church. Incensed by the
>>>>>> ubiquitous, uncritical news coverage of Davos, they met with Bernard
>>>>>> Cassen, editor of *Le Monde Diplomatique*, who encouraged them to
>>>>>> organize a counter-Davos in the Global South. With support from the
>>>>>> government of Rio Grande do Sul, a committee of eight Brazilian
>>>>>> organizations launched the first WSF. The expectation was that about 3,000
>>>>>> people attend (the same as Davos), but instead 20,000 activists from around
>>>>>> the world came to Porto Alegre to organize and share their visions for six
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WSF annual meetings enjoyed great success, invariably drawing close
>>>>>> to 100,000 participants (even as high as 150,000 in 2005). Eventually, the
>>>>>> meetings moved out of Latin America, first to Mumbai in 2004, where 20,000
>>>>>> Dalits participated, then to Caracas, Nairobi, Dakar, Tunis, and Montreal.
>>>>>> Along the way, two other streams—Regional Social Forums and Thematic Social
>>>>>> Forums—were created to complement the annual central gathering, and local
>>>>>> Forums were held in many countries. Cumulatively, the WSF has brought
>>>>>> together millions of people willing to pay their travel and lodging costs
>>>>>> to share their experiences and collective dreams for a better world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WSF’s Charter of Principles, drafted by the organizing committee of
>>>>>> the first Forum and adopted at the event itself, reflected these dreams.
>>>>>> The Charter presents a vision of deeply interconnected civil society groups
>>>>>> collaborating to create new alternatives to neoliberal capitalism rooted in
>>>>>> “human rights, the practices of real democracy, participatory democracy,
>>>>>> peaceful relations, in equality and solidarity, among people, ethnicities,
>>>>>> genders and peoples.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet, the “how” of realizing any vision was hamstrung from the start.
>>>>>> The Charter’s first principle describes the WSF as an “open meeting place,”
>>>>>> which, as interpreted by the Brazilian founders, precluded it from taking
>>>>>> stances on pressing world crises. This resistance to collective political
>>>>>> action relegated the WSF to a self-referential place of debate, rather than
>>>>>> a body capable of taking real action in the international arena.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It didn’t have to be this way. Indeed, the 2002 European Social Forum
>>>>>> called for mass protest against the looming US invasion of Iraq, and the
>>>>>> subsequent 2003 Forum played a major role in organizing the day of action
>>>>>> the following month with 15 million protesters in the streets of 800 cities
>>>>>> on all continents—the largest demonstration in history at the time.
>>>>>> However, the WSF’s core organizers, who were not interested in this path,
>>>>>> held sway, a phenomenon inextricable from the democratic deficit that has
>>>>>> always dogged the Forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, the WSF has never had a democratically elected leadership.
>>>>>> After the first gathering, the Brazilian host committee convened a meeting
>>>>>> in Sao Paolo to discuss how best to carry the WSF forward. They invited
>>>>>> numerous international organizations, and on the second day of the meeting
>>>>>> appointed us all as the International Council. Several important
>>>>>> organizations, not interested in this meeting, were left off the council,
>>>>>> and those who did attend were predominately from Europe and the Americas.
>>>>>> In the ensuing years, efforts to change the composition created as many
>>>>>> problems as they solved. Many organizations wanted to be represented on the
>>>>>> Council, but due to vague criteria for evaluating their representativeness
>>>>>> and strength, the Council soon became a long list of names (most inactive),
>>>>>> with the roster of participants changing with every Council meeting.
>>>>>> Despite repeated requests from participating organizations, the Brazilian
>>>>>> founders have refused to revisit the Charter, defending it as an immutable
>>>>>> text rather than a document of a particular historical moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *AT A CROSSROADS*
>>>>>> The future of the WSF remains uncertain. Out of a misguided fear of
>>>>>> division, the Brazilian founders have thwarted efforts to allow the WSF to
>>>>>> issue political declarations, establish spokespeople, and reevaluate the
>>>>>> principle of horizontality, which eschews representative decision-making
>>>>>> structures, as the basis for governance. Perhaps most significantly, they
>>>>>> have resisted calls to transcend the WSF’s original mission as a venue for
>>>>>> discussion and become a space for organizing. With WSF spokespeople
>>>>>> forbidden, the media stopped coming, since they had no interlocutors. Even
>>>>>> broad declarations that would not cause schism, like condemnation of wars
>>>>>> or appeals for climate action, have been prohibited. As a result, the WSF
>>>>>> has become akin to a personal growth retreat where participants come away
>>>>>> with renewed individual strength, but without any impact on the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of its inability to adapt, and thereby act, the WSF has lost
>>>>>> an opportunity to influence how the public understands the crises the world
>>>>>> faces, a vacuum that has been filled by the resurgent right-wing. In 2001,
>>>>>> globalization’s critics emerged mainly on the left, pointing out how
>>>>>> market-driven globalization runs roughshod over workers and the
>>>>>> environment. Since then, as the WSF has floundered and social democratic
>>>>>> parties have bought into the governing neoliberal consensus, the right has
>>>>>> managed to capitalize on the broad and growing hostility to globalization,
>>>>>> rooted especially in the feeling of being left behind experienced by
>>>>>> working-class people. Prior to the US financial crisis of 2008 and the
>>>>>> European sovereign bond crisis of 2009, the National Front in France was
>>>>>> the only established right-wing party in the West. Since then, with a
>>>>>> decade of economic chaos and brutal austerity, right-wing parties have
>>>>>> blossomed everywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The unsettling rise of the anti-globalization right has scrambled
>>>>>> many political assumptions and alliances. At the start of the WSF, our
>>>>>> enemies were the international financial institutions, such as the
>>>>>> International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Now, these institutions
>>>>>> support reducing income inequality and increasing public investment. The
>>>>>> World Trade Organization, the infamous target of massive protests in 1999,
>>>>>> was our enemy as well, for skewing the rules of global trade toward
>>>>>> multinational corporations; now, US president Donald Trump is trying to
>>>>>> dismantle it for having any rules at all. We criticized the European
>>>>>> Commission for its free market commitment, and lack of social action: now
>>>>>> we have to defend the idea of a United Europe against nationalism,
>>>>>> xenophobia, and populism. These forces have upended and transformed global
>>>>>> political dynamics. Those fighting globalization and multilateralism, using
>>>>>> our diagnosis, are now the right-wing forces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * LOOKING AHEAD*
>>>>>> Is there, then, a future for the World Social Forum? Logistically,
>>>>>> the outlook is not good. Right-wing Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, an
>>>>>> ally of authoritarian strongmen around the world, has announced that he
>>>>>> will forbid any support for the Forum, putting its future at grave risk.
>>>>>> Holding a forum of such size requires significant financial support, and a
>>>>>> government at least willing to grant visas to participants from across the
>>>>>> globe. The vibrant Brazilian civil society groups of 2001 are now
>>>>>> struggling for survival.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, right-wing governments around the world attack global civil
>>>>>> society as a competitor or an enemy. In Italy, Interior Minister Matteo
>>>>>> Salvini has been pushing to eliminate the tax status of nonprofits. Like
>>>>>> Salvini in Italy, Trump in the US, Viktor Orban in Hungary, Narendra Modi
>>>>>> in India, and Shinzo Abe in Japan, among others, are unwilling to hear the
>>>>>> voice of civil society. Their escalating assault on civil society might
>>>>>> spell the formal end of the World Social Forum, although the WSF’s refusal
>>>>>> to evolve with the times left the organization vulnerable to such assaults.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the World Social Forum does fade away as an actor on the global
>>>>>> stage, we can take many valuable lessons from its history as we mount new
>>>>>> initiatives for a “movement of movements.” First, we need to support civil
>>>>>> society unity. Boaventura de Sousa Santos, the Portuguese anthropologist
>>>>>> and a leading participant in the WSF, stresses the importance of
>>>>>> “translation” between movement streams. Women’s organizations focus on
>>>>>> patriarchy, indigenous organizations on colonial exploitation, human rights
>>>>>> organizations on justice, and environmental organizations on
>>>>>> sustainability. Building mutual understanding, trust, and a basis for
>>>>>> collective work requires a process of translation and interpretation of
>>>>>> different priorities, embedding them in a holistic framework.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any initiative to build transnational movement coordination must
>>>>>> address this challenge. While it is easier to build a mass action against a
>>>>>> common enemy, nurturing a common movement culture requires a process of
>>>>>> sustained dialogue. The WSF was instrumental in creating awareness of the
>>>>>> need for a holistic approach to fight, under the same rubric, climate
>>>>>> change, unchecked finance, social injustice, and ecological degradation.
>>>>>> Building on that experience with how the issues intersect is critical to a
>>>>>> viable global movement. The WSF has made possible alliances among the
>>>>>> social movements, which got their legitimacy by fighting the system, and
>>>>>> the myriad NGOs, which got theirs from the agenda of the United Nations.
>>>>>> This is certainly a significant historical contribution, enabling the next
>>>>>> phase in the evolution of global civil society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, we need to balance movement horizontalism and organizational
>>>>>> structure. For the vast majority of participants in cutting-edge
>>>>>> progressive movements over the past half-century, the notion of a political
>>>>>> party, or any such organization, has been linked to oppressive power,
>>>>>> corruption, and lack of legitimacy. This suspicion of organization,
>>>>>> reflected in the core ideology of the WSF, has contributed to its lack of
>>>>>> action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This tendency to reject verticality out of fear of its association
>>>>>> with oppression poses a major challenge to the formation of a global
>>>>>> movement: those who would be, in principle, its largest constituency will
>>>>>> question overarching organizational structures. Based on historical
>>>>>> experience, they fear the generation of unhealthy structures of power, the
>>>>>> corruption of ideals, and the lack of real participation. Nevertheless,
>>>>>> coordination is essential for a diverse global movement to develop
>>>>>> sufficient coherence. The task is to find legitimate forms of collective
>>>>>> organization that balance the tension between the commitments to both unity
>>>>>> and pluralism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Third, a global movement effort must navigate a new media landscape.
>>>>>> The Internet has changed the character of political participation. Space
>>>>>> has shrunk, and time has become fluid and compressed. Social media has
>>>>>> become more important than conventional media. Indeed, it was essential,
>>>>>> for example, to the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil and Salvini in Italy,
>>>>>> as well as Brexit in the UK. US newspapers have a daily run of 62 million
>>>>>> copies (ten million from quality papers like the *Wall Street
>>>>>> Journal*, *New York Times*, and *Washington Post*), while Trump
>>>>>> tweets to as many followers. Contemporary communications technology, while
>>>>>> used to sow confusion and abuse by the right, must be central to
>>>>>> transnational mobilization campaigns fostering awareness and solidarity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Political apathy among potential allies remains as great a challenge
>>>>>> as the right-wing surge. This is not a new phenomenon. The triumphant
>>>>>> pronouncements of the end of ideology and history three decades ago helped
>>>>>> mute explicit debate on the long-term vision for society. Instead, the
>>>>>> technocrats of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the US
>>>>>> Treasury foisted the Washington Consensus on the rest of the world:
>>>>>> financial deregulation, trade liberalization, privatization, and fiscal
>>>>>> austerity. The benefits of globalization would lift all boats; curb
>>>>>> nonproductive social costs; privatize health and more; and globalize trade,
>>>>>> finance, and industry. Center-left parties across the West resigned
>>>>>> themselves to this brave new world. “Third Way” leaders like British Prime
>>>>>> Minister Tony Blair argued that since corporate globalization was
>>>>>> inevitable, progressives could, at best, give it a human face. In the
>>>>>> absence of a real alternative to the dominant paradigm, the left lost its
>>>>>> constituency. The wreckage left behind by neoliberal governments has become
>>>>>> the engine for the populist and xenophobic forces from across the globe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking ahead, to build a viable political formation for a Great
>>>>>> Transition, we must find a banner under which people can rally. Climate
>>>>>> action has increasingly served this function, with the youthfulness of the
>>>>>> climate movement a reason for hope. The climate strike movement, led by
>>>>>> Swedish student Greta Thunberg, has engaged tens of thousands of students
>>>>>> worldwide and shown that the fight for a better world is on. These new
>>>>>> young activists, many of whom have probably never heard of the WSF, do not
>>>>>> pretend to come with a pre-made platform; they simply ask the system to
>>>>>> listen to scientists. The lack of a full vision allows them to avoid many
>>>>>> of the WSF’s problems, yet still underscore how the system has exhausted
>>>>>> its viability in the face of spiraling crises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Millions of people across the globe are engaged at the grassroots
>>>>>> level, hundreds of times more than related to the WSF. The great challenge
>>>>>> is to connect with those working to change the present dire trends, making
>>>>>> clear that we are not part of the same elite structures and, indeed, share
>>>>>> the same enemy. The historic preconditions undergird the possibility of
>>>>>> such a project, our visions of another world give it a direction, and the
>>>>>> growing restlessness of countless ordinary people is a hopeful harbinger.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we find the modes of communication and alliance to galvanize the
>>>>>> global movement and propel it forward? I do not see much value in a
>>>>>> coalition of organizations and militants who meet merely to discuss among
>>>>>> themselves. Collective action is necessary for counterbalancing the decline
>>>>>> of democracy, increasing civic participation, and keeping values and
>>>>>> visions at the forefront. In the WSF, the debate about moving in this
>>>>>> direction has been going for quite some time, but has repeatedly run up
>>>>>> against the intransigence of the founders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be a mistake to lose the WSF’s impressive history and
>>>>>> convening authority. But we need to recreate it in order to reflect the
>>>>>> present barbarized. Will we be able to reform WSF, and if this is not
>>>>>> possible, create an alternative? Citizens have become more aware of the
>>>>>> need for change than they were when we first met in Porto Alegre many years
>>>>>> ago. But they are also more divided, some taking the reactionary path of
>>>>>> following authoritarian leaders, some the progressive path of social
>>>>>> justice, participation, transparency, and cooperation. As the conventional
>>>>>> system destabilizes and loses legitimacy, giving life to a revamped WSF—or
>>>>>> creating a new platform—might be easier than the challenge of launching the
>>>>>> process eighteen years ago. Still, realizing the next phase will take new
>>>>>> leaders, wide participation, and recognition of the need for new
>>>>>> structures. In these times, this is a tall order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *********************************************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tuesday, September 3, 2019
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From Paul Raskin [praskin at tellus.org]
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear GTN,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since 2001, the World Social Forum has served as civil society’s
>>>>>> answer to the World Economic Forum, the annual powwow in Davos of the
>>>>>> masters of the neoliberal universe. Over the years, the WSF has brought
>>>>>> together hundreds of thousands of activists to meet, network, and
>>>>>> reenergize commitments. It has stood as a tangible expression of the
>>>>>> diffuse but vibrant “alter globalization” community, and a source of hope
>>>>>> for the emergence of a systemic global movement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At the same time, the WSF has mirrored the movement’s immaturity.
>>>>>> Most significantly, the disabling fragmentation within civil society has
>>>>>> been reflected in the forest of separate tents that spring up at Forums,
>>>>>> each devoted to specific issues and grievances, with little exploration of
>>>>>> common visions, positions, and coordination mechanisms. More prosaically,
>>>>>> the logistical chaos that has plagued Forums and frustrated attendees
>>>>>> symbolizes the underdeveloped organizational capacity of the “movement of
>>>>>> movements.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, as these deficits take their toll and the times change, the WSF
>>>>>> seems to be losing momentum and relevance. So it’s timely to critically
>>>>>> reflect on its achievements and whether the WSF, itself, needs a Great
>>>>>> Transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our September GTN Discussion—*FAREWELL TO THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM?*—takes
>>>>>> up the challenge.
>>>>>> (Please organize your comments as responses to one or more of the
>>>>>> following topics.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Looking Back*
>>>>>> *What has been the historic significance of the WSF? In what ways has
>>>>>> its strategy of providing a neutral gathering space advanced (or curtailed)
>>>>>> the “movement of movements”? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *At a Crossroads*
>>>>>> *Does the WSF retain its vitality as a beacon of “another world,” or
>>>>>> is it losing momentum? Has its unbending commitment to radical pluralism
>>>>>> sacrificed movement unity? *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Looking Ahead*
>>>>>> *Should the WSF continue to operate as an open space? Seek to
>>>>>> reinvent itself as a collective force for political action? Or should
>>>>>> attention shift to fresh initiatives for building a coherent global
>>>>>> movement?*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Roberto Savio, founder of Inter Press Service (IPS) and longtime
>>>>>> member of the WSF International Council, opens the debate. His essay can be
>>>>>> found here
>>>>>> <https://greattransition.org/images/Savio-Farewell-WSF.pdf> . I look
>>>>>> forward to your comments, whether brief or extended (but less than 1,200
>>>>>> words).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The discussion will go through Wednesday, October 2, when Roberto
>>>>>> will have an opportunity to respond. Per usual, we will then create a
>>>>>> public GTI Forum that samples a range of perspectives raised in the
>>>>>> internal GTN discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Over to you,
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Hit reply to post a comment on the GT Network
>>>>>> Read all comments (or reply) here
>>>>>> <https://greattransition.org/gtn-discussions/farewell-to-the-wsf#3033>
>>>>>> Note: Expect a delay between posting and receiving your comment
>>>>>> Need help? Email jcohn at tellus.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>
>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
>>
>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20190908/fb758a3e/attachment-0001.html>